fx 8320/6300 on an ssd vs 3570k on an hdd

[NTMBK]

the productivity apps (OS, Office, Browsers, Minecraft)

Heh, I know that feeling. Genuinely though, Minecraft is one game that would benefit massively from an SSD. So much time in that game is spent streaming chunks of world from disk to memory.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

so which one would you prefer to use ?

Isn't it obvious...

3570K with SSD...

But if budget limited I would have no qualms about using an AMD based PC. The 6300 actually seems nice, when you look at the entire platform...

 

[The Alias]

waiting 15 seconds for a game to load instead of 4 seconds doesn't really matter to me.

that means the WORLD to me those eleven seconds mean being able to pick scope or being relegated to a 74u in promod (trust me I know lol)

 

[The Alias]

so what do you guys think about this setup ?http://pcpartpicker.com/p/m8xD

 

[Termie]

so what do you guys think about this setup ?http://pcpartpicker.com/p/m8xD

Excellent.

Just three pointers:

(1) The SSD is on sale at Newegg today for $70. Might want to jump on that now - here's the hot deals thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2280272

(2) There's nothing special about that $40 set of Kingston DDR3-1600. In fact, its voltage is too high. Go for this Corsair instead for $2 less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820233202

Edit: I see you're using a combo discount for that memory/motherboard. Hmmm...I'd still skip that memory. It's junk.

(3) I think you're paying too much for that HD7850. I'd go for the Sapphire model for $185: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102999

There's also a Sapphire HD7870 on sale for $185, although it has some mixed reviews: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102983

 

[Arkaign]

so what do you guys think about this setup ?http://pcpartpicker.com/p/m8xD

I like it, though I agree with Termie's point about the ram.

I still think that $85 more would get you into a 7950 3GB, which is a pretty big leap up in GPU. Even more than a 3570K, that would give you boss level gaming.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202007

$309 AR

You could even do it while holding on to the SSD.

Just skip the mechanical hdd for now, and also put the KB on hold (surely you have an old one you could use for the time being?). That way you could add in the HDD and KB when you get more $, and start out with a much more robust GPU (literally the most important thing for gaming). 7950 w/OC gives you the ability to max out virtually everything at 1080p without scaling back on AA, and even opens the door to solid 1200p/1440p gaming should you upgrade monitors down the line. 3GB of memory also helps when you start piling on the texture mods and will make future games more doable as graphics improve.

I'm not saying the 7850 is bad by any means, but with your budget I'd feel bad skipping out on the opportunity to go one solid step higher.

 

[AtenRa]

I would change the M/B to ASUS M5A97 R2.0 and the memory with the corsair

If you can get the HD7950 even better for high IQ gaming at 1080p :thumbsup:

 

[The Alias]

I like it, though I agree with Termie's point about the ram.

I still think that $85 more would get you into a 7950 3GB, which is a pretty big leap up in GPU. Even more than a 3570K, that would give you boss level gaming.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814202007

$309 AR

You could even do it while holding on to the SSD.

Just skip the mechanical hdd for now, and also put the KB on hold (surely you have an old one you could use for the time being?). That way you could add in the HDD and KB when you get more $, and start out with a much more robust GPU (literally the most important thing for gaming). 7950 w/OC gives you the ability to max out virtually everything at 1080p without scaling back on AA, and even opens the door to solid 1200p/1440p gaming should you upgrade monitors down the line. 3GB of memory also helps when you start piling on the texture mods and will make future games more doable as graphics improve.

I'm not saying the 7850 is bad by any means, but with your budget I'd feel bad skipping out on the opportunity to go one solid step higher.

I can't skip out on the keyboard nor the mouse because I'm selling them along with my current pc (that's the reason I can get the new one) although gettign rid of the hdd is a good idea as I have a backup IDE that I can put in this one already here (used to mod xbox 1s ) so I can save some on that .

A big scare for the 78xx series and a reason I went straight to msi's power edition 7850 is the black screen issue present in a lot of 7850s apparently and the power edition doesn't seem to have that from what I've seen plus it's power delivery is second to none for those cards and I like that alot

 

[The Alias]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/m8W0
couldn't do 7950 as I couldn't get that and still get the gf's nexus 10

is the memory any good I got a COMBOOOO deal on it and I saw it had the same voltage as the corsair

 

[Termie]

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/m8W0
couldn't do 7950 as I couldn't get that and still get the gf's nexus 10

is the memory any good I got a COMBOOOO deal on it and I saw it had the same voltage as the corsair

Good choice. Just keep in mind that it's pretty tall, potentially causing heatsink clearance problems - don't know how close the memory slots are to the CPU on AMD boards, though.

Sounds like you might be on to something with the HD7000 black screen problem. MSI's upgraded card might be worth it, then.

 

[minitron]

Every time we have the CPU/GPU bottleneck debate, people will bring SC2 and Skyrim. Well ok, they are two(2) games out of what ?? 100 ??? 1000??

ps: By the time your C2Q made any difference in gaming it was obsolete and people were replacing there Dual cores with Core i5 and Core i7. Now days a Core i3 or any quad core is enough for 90% of games and your bottleneck is the GPU most of the time and not your CPU.(yes yes except SC2 and Skyrim)

This fanboy used to claim the FX-8150 was faster than an i7 for gaming. You can completely disregard everything he posts considering he either has no clue what he's talking about or is just an AMD fanboy, probably both.

But yeah, any i5 > any AMD CPU for games.

 

[Mallibu]

Everytime the conversation goes like this:
"Get a crappy AMD CPU because some games are GPU limited and you won't notice a difference. "
By the same logic get a Pentium G870 (probably better than any AMD cpu in a lot of games), and go all in on GPU.


World of warcraft, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2, Civ V, Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Anno 2070, Crysis 2, F1 2012, Arma 2, Rise of Flight (http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-13/jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html) and a lot others are just a few of many games. It's not like in the age of console ports every game is Metro 2033 and is heavy GPU limited (except that in this game also, Intel runs better).

The above mentioned games are massively popular, and unless someone wants to play only AMD fanboy cherry picked titles, he is better off with an Intel CPU.

 

[minitron]

Everytime the conversation goes like this:
"Get a crappy AMD CPU because some games are GPU limited and you won't notice a difference. "

World of warcraft, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2, Civ V, Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Anno 2070 and a lot others are just a few of many. It's not like in the age of console ports every game is Metro 2033 and is heavy GPU limited (except that in this game also, Intel runs better).

The above mentioned games are massively popular, and unless someone wants to play only AMD fanboy cherry picked titles, he is better off with an Intel CPU.

Yep.

It's simple really: with Intel you're accounting for CPU-limited games, with AMD you aren't.

 

[Arkaign]

I can't skip out on the keyboard nor the mouse because I'm selling them along with my current pc (that's the reason I can get the new one) although gettign rid of the hdd is a good idea as I have a backup IDE that I can put in this one already here (used to mod xbox 1s ) so I can save some on that .

A big scare for the 78xx series and a reason I went straight to msi's power edition 7850 is the black screen issue present in a lot of 7850s apparently and the power edition doesn't seem to have that from what I've seen plus it's power delivery is second to none for those cards and I like that alot

Get this for $10 then :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16823165013

And give that brand-new set away with your old PC. Then you can put the HDD on hold as well, and get that 7950 OC!! Trust me, it's a big big gain, and you'll be able to pick up those $40-$60 items down the line as you get more $.

 

[Yuriman]

I play a lot of Starcraft 2 and Guild Wars 2, as well as emulating gamecube and Wii games, so Intel was the obvious choice for my system.

Fun image:

Taken from: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

Notice how incredibly CPU-bound this game is. With an FX, even with 7970 Crossfire, you're not going to get more than 44fps average. Overclocking a 3570K gives noticeable gains, and it's miles ahead of AMD's offering. GW2 is pretty close to a worst-case scenario for the FX though.

Another thing to consider: since Intel's cores are so much faster per clock than AMD's, in games like Metroid Prime 3 and SSBM: Brawl, you're looking at something like 45-50fps (80% emulation speed) on an FX, resulting in choppy sound and slow-motion gameplay, while it runs smooth as butter on an i5.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Everytime the conversation goes like this:
"Get a crappy AMD CPU because some games are GPU limited and you won't notice a difference. "
By the same logic get a Pentium G870 (probably better than any AMD cpu in a lot of games), and go all in on GPU.


World of warcraft, Starcraft 2, Shogun 2, Civ V, Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Anno 2070, Crysis 2, F1 2012, Arma 2, Rise of Flight (http://www.hardware.fr/articles/880-13/jeux-3d-crysis-2-arma-ii-oa.html) and a lot others are just a few of many games. It's not like in the age of console ports every game is Metro 2033 and is heavy GPU limited (except that in this game also, Intel runs better).

The above mentioned games are massively popular, and unless someone wants to play only AMD fanboy cherry picked titles, he is better off with an Intel CPU.

Yea, the ironic thing is that now that Vishera is faster in selected apps than a non HT core i5, the AMD fans are touting to high heaven how great the CPU is. I guess "fast enough" is acceptable for AMD, but not for intel in the few isolated cases where they lose to an AMD processor that has twice the "cores" and uses 50% more power.

 

[sequoia464]

I like it, though I agree with Termie's point about the ram.
http://

What is your opinion of this Samsung ram? I just today got a couple of 4GB sticks, heard good things about it, but...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...1&name=SAMSUNG

 

[The Alias]

I play a lot of Starcraft 2 and Guild Wars 2, as well as emulating gamecube and Wii games, so Intel was the obvious choice for my system.

Fun image:

Taken from: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/guild-wars-2-performance-benchmark,3268-7.html

Notice how incredibly CPU-bound this game is. With an FX, even with 7970 Crossfire, you're not going to get more than 44fps average. Overclocking a 3570K gives noticeable gains, and it's miles ahead of AMD's offering. GW2 is pretty close to a worst-case scenario for the FX though.

Another thing to consider: since Intel's cores are so much faster per clock than AMD's, in games like Metroid Prime 3 and SSBM: Brawl, you're looking at something like 45-50fps (80% emulation speed) on an FX, resulting in choppy sound and slow-motion gameplay, while it runs smooth as butter on an i5.

you know it's funny how you are so excited to post something anti amd you forget to notice that the the amd cpus are DOWNCLOCKED and they are BULLDOZER NOT PILEDRIVER and still when you have a close to stock clocked 4 core BULLDOZER it performs better than the similarly priced i3 2100

 

[Arkaign]

What is your opinion of this Samsung ram? I just today got a couple of 4GB sticks, heard good things about it, but...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...1&name=SAMSUNG

Looks just fine to me!

 

[Yuriman]

you know it's funny how you are so excited to post something anti amd you forget to notice that the the amd cpus are DOWNCLOCKED and they are BULLDOZER NOT PILEDRIVER and still when you have a close to stock clocked 4 core BULLDOZER it performs better than the similarly priced i3 2100

It's not a matter of anti-AMD or not, it's a matter of picking the right chip for your uses. I'm aware that the FX-4100 (I assume) is downclocked 15% in that graph, but the point stands that in Guild Wars 2, you want an Intel CPU or you won't have smooth gameplay. As for Bulldozer vs Intel instead of Piledriver, notice also that those are Sandy Bridge chips being compared, not Ivy Bridge chips. It's a valid comparison.

If you play a lot of Battlefield 3 and/or encode videos, I would strongly recommend an FX-8320 because it has much better price/performance than an i5 for those purposes.

I posted that benchmark because it's a game I play, and performance in that game is important to me. I also play a lot of Gamecube and Wii games on my PC. If performance in GW2 / Starcraft 2 / emulation are not important to you, then please ignore BD/PD's performance in those games as it isn't relevant to your decision-making.

FYI, I have a 1055T in my 2nd rig.

EDIT: I have to wonder why you posted this thread at all if you're just going to jump all over anyone who points out the shortcomings of AMD's offerings. Sheesh.

 

[Mallibu]

I have a feeling also that the OP already had decided AMD before the thread was made :whiste:

 

[AtenRa]

FX6300 and 4300 review paired with GTX670

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...57615-amd-vishera-fx-6300-fx-4300-review.html

This is why benching CPUs at 720p or below makes it irrelevant for 1080p gaming.

FX8350 is slower than Core i3 at 720p but much faster at 1080p
FX6300 is slower than Core i3 at 720p but equal at 1080p

FX8350 is slower than Core i5 at 720p but faster/equal at 1080p
FX6300 is slower than Core i3 at 720p but faster at 1080p

Heh, GPU limited at 720p

Not all games behave like that, but making a conclusion about gaming performance only at lower resolutions is wrong. IT sites must start to include 1080p gaming benchmarks in CPU reviews as well.

 

[Yuriman]

Not all games behave like that, but making a conclusion about gaming performance only at lower resolutions is wrong. IT sites must start to include 1080p gaming benchmarks in CPU reviews as well.

Not necessarily. I mean, Guild Wars 2 (my above example) is CPU-bottlenecked well below 60fps by any FX chip, regardless of what resolution you use. If you benched at 2560 and managed to lower all systems down to 25fps due to GPU-limitations then yes, they'd look the same, but it's generally agreed that if a CPU can't maintain 60fps regardless of the GPU its paired with, it's a relevant bottleneck.

The OP may not play any games that are CPU bottlenecked in that way though.

 

[beginner99]

For people talking about space issues, I survive with a 64GB SSD without any problems.

My secret? Symlinks.

All my music, games, virtual machines, those are on spinning platters. The page file, hibernation file, OS, those are on the SSD, which seriously boost performance.

Of course but the hdd also has a cost tag, thats what I wanted to say, eg. an fx6300 + ssd + hdd will be more expensive than a i5 3570k + hdd or with just the ssd he will run into space issues.

 

[AtenRa]

Not necessarily. I mean, Guild Wars 2 (my above example) is CPU-bottlenecked well below 60fps by any FX chip, regardless of what resolution you use.

Since they haven't benched any FX cpus at their default frequencies i will have to dismiss the above claim.

I will like to see FX6300 and FX83xx at default and OC and then make any conclusions